Key lawmakers clashed with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration over its recent decision to reject two coal-burning power plants in western Kansas.
The lawmakers indicated they would try to adopt legislation to put the plants back on track.
"I believe that we will have some type of legislative package developed, either before the session starts or after the session begins, to address this issue," said Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton.
But Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby, who denied the plants because of concerns about global warming, told legislators that future guidelines on carbon dioxide emissions will be considered as power plants come in for permit renewals.
"We do need to take the next step in looking at a climate change action plan," said Bremby, although he said targeted goals for CO2 reductions would not be in the form of regulations.
Bremby faced the legislative equivalent of a firing squad as he was summoned to testify to a recently formed committee composed of only supporters of the two 700-megawatt plants.
"What force of law did you have (to deny the plants)? " asked Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, who serves as chairman of the Electric Generation Review Committee. Even though the state doesn't regulate carbon dioxide, Bremby said he denied the permits because the CO2 emissions from the plants would have harmed the health of Kansans and the environment.
"CO2 contributes to climate change, which contributes to global warming, which is harmful to all humans," he said.
Repeatedly, members of the committee asked Bremby if he intended to put in place regulations to limit CO2 in existing coal-burning power plants. Bremby said that the state needs to develop a plan to reduce emissions.
"We have an issue we need to deal with," he said.
At times, Bremby backed off answering questions because, he said, the proposal by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. will probably be decided in court. Although called to the committee, Attorney General Paul Morrison declined to appear, citing the possibility of future litigation in the case.
Morrison wrote a letter to the panel saying he stood by his legal analysis that Bremby had the authority to deny the permits under Kansas law.
Earlier, Sunflower chief executive officer Earl Watkins Jr. urged legislators to reverse Bremby's decision by passing a law that would restrict the secretary's authority to regulate only what the federal government is allowed to regulate.
Watkins said Bremby's decision was a "callous disregard of the law" that will put the Kansas economy at risk because of "regulatory uncertainty." He said Bremby's order could cause higher electric rates for rural customers, business flight, and force Sunflower to build its next plant in Oklahoma or Texas. And Watkins and others called to testify by Holmes downplayed the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
"Carbon dioxide is a substance that sustains life," Watkins said. Executives from Westar Energy and Kansas City Power & Light also testified that Kansas must have more coal-powered plants to meet increasing demand.
AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.
Key Points
AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.
✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.
✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.
Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.
The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.
Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.
Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.
“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.
AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.
Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.
While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.
“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.
The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.
Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.
“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.
“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.
AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.
“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”
We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.
“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”
Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.
“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.
Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.
“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.
“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.
The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.
“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”
Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.
Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.
“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.
Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.
Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.
Nuclear Power for Net-Zero Grids anchors reliable baseload, integrating renewables with grid stability as solar, wind, and battery storage scale. Advanced reactors complement hydropower, curb natural gas reliance, and accelerate deep decarbonization of electricity systems.
Key Points
Uses nuclear baseload and advanced reactors to stabilize power grids and integrate higher shares of variable renewables.
✅ Provides firm, zero-carbon baseload for renewable-heavy grids
✅ Reduces natural gas dependence and peaker emissions
✅ Advanced reactors enhance safety, flexibility, and cost
Declining solar, wind, and battery technology costs are helping to grow the share of renewables in the world’s power mix to the point that governments are pledging net-zero emission electricity generation in two to three decades to fight global warming.
Yet, electricity grids will continue to require stable baseload to incorporate growing shares of renewable energy sources and ensure lights are on even when the sun doesn’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow. Until battery technology evolves enough—and costs fall far enough—to allow massive storage and deployment of net-zero electricity to the grid, the systems will continue to need power from sources other than solar and wind.
And these will be natural gas and nuclear power, regardless of concerns about emissions from the fossil fuel natural gas and potential disasters at nuclear power facilities such as the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
As natural gas is increasingly considered as just another fossil fuel, nuclear power generation provides carbon-free electricity to the countries that have it, even as debates over nuclear power’s outlook continue worldwide, and could be the key to ensuring a stable power grid capable of taking in growing shares of solar and wind power generation.
The United States, where nuclear energy currently provides more than half of the carbon-free electricity, is supporting the development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of the clean energy strategy.
But Europe, which has set a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, could find itself with growing emissions from the power sector in a decade, as many nuclear reactors are slated for decommissioning and questions remain over whether its aging reactors can bridge the gap. The gap left by lost nuclear power is most easily filled by natural gas-powered electricity generation—and this, if it happens, could undermine the net-zero goals of the European Union (EU) and the bloc’s ambition to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.
U.S. Power Grid Will Need Nuclear For Net-Zero Emissions
A 2020 report from the University of California, Berkeley, said that rapidly declining solar, wind, and storage prices make it entirely feasible for the U.S. to meet 90 percent of its power needs from zero-emission energy sources by 2035 with zero increases in customer costs from today’s levels.
Still, natural gas-fired generation will be needed for 10 percent of America’s power needs. According to the report, in 2035 it would be possible that “during normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 70% of annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 20%.” Even with an exponential rise in renewable power generation, the U.S. grid will need nuclear power and hydropower to be stable with such a large share of solar and wind.
The U.S. Backs Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology
The U.S. Department of Energy is funding programs of private companies under DOE’s new Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to showcase next-gen nuclear designs for U.S. deployment.
“Taking leadership in advanced technology is so important to the country’s future because nuclear energy plays such a key role in our clean energy strategy,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said at the end of December when DOE announced it was financially backing five teams to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors in the United States.
“All of these projects will put the U.S. on an accelerated timeline to domestically and globally deploy advanced nuclear reactors that will enhance safety and be affordable to construct and operate,” Secretary Brouillette said.
According to Washington DC-based Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a policy organization of the nuclear technologies industry, nuclear energy provides nearly 55 percent of America’s carbon-free electricity. That is more than 2.5 times the amount generated by hydropower, nearly 3 times the amount generated by wind, and more than 12 times the amount generated by solar. Nuclear energy can help the United States to get to the deep carbonization needed to hit climate goals.
Europe Could See Rising Emissions Without Nuclear Power
While the United States is doubling down on efforts to develop advanced and cheaper nuclear reactors, including microreactors and such with new types of technology, Europe could be headed to growing emissions from the electricity sector as nuclear power facilities are scheduled to be decommissioned over the next decade and Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy, according to a Reuters analysis from last month.
In many cases, it will be natural gas that will come to the rescue to power grids to ensure grid stability and enough capacity during peak demand because solar and wind generation is variable and dependent on the weather.
For example, Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, is boosting its renewables targets, but it is also phasing out nuclear by next year, amid a nuclear option debate over climate strategy, while its deadline to phase out coal-fired generation is 2038—more than a decade later compared to phase-out plans in the UK and Italy, for example, where the deadline is the mid-2020s.
The UK, which left the EU last year, included support for nuclear power generation as one of the ten pillars in ‘The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ unveiled in November.
The UK’s National Grid has issued several warnings about tight supply since the fall of 2020, due to low renewable output amid high demand.
“National Grid’s announcement underscores the urgency of investing in new nuclear capacity, to secure reliable, always-on, emissions-free power, alongside other zero-carbon sources. Otherwise, we will continue to burn gas and coal as a fallback and fall short of our net zero ambitions,” Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said in response to one of those warnings.
But it’s in the UK that one major nuclear power plant project has notoriously seen a delay of nearly a decade—Hinkley Point C, originally planned in 2007 to help UK households to “cook their 2017 Christmas turkeys”, is now set for start-up in the middle of the 2020s.
Nuclear power development and plant construction is expensive, but it could save the plans for low-carbon emission power generation in many developed economies, including in the United States.
UK Offshore Wind Expansion will make wind the main power source, driving renewable energy, offshore projects, smart grids, battery storage, and interconnectors to cut carbon emissions, boost exports, and attract global investment.
Key Points
A UK strategy to scale offshore wind, integrate smart grids and storage, cut emissions and drive investment and exports
✅ 30% energy target by 2030, backed by CfD support
✅ 250m industry investment and smart grid build-out
✅ Battery storage and interconnectors balance intermittency
Plans are afoot to make wind the UKs main power source for the first time in history amid ambitious targets to generate 30 percent of its total energy supply by 2030, up from 8 percent at present.
A recently inked deal will see the offshore wind industry invest 250 million into technology and infrastructure over the next 11 years, with the government committing up to 557 million in support, under a renewable energy auction that boosts wind and tidal projects, as part of its bid to lower carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
Offshore wind investment is crucial for meeting decarbonisation targets while increasing energy production, says Dominic Szanto, Director, Energy and Infrastructure at JLL. The governments approach over the last seven years has been to promise support to the industry, provided that cost reduction targets were met. This certainty has led to the development of larger, more efficient wind turbines which means the cost of offshore wind energy is a third of what it was in 2012.
Boosting the wind industry
Offshore wind power has been gathering pace in the UK and has grown despite COVID-19 disruptions in recent years. Earlier this year, the Hornsea One wind farm, the worlds largest offshore generator which is located off the Yorkshire coast, started producing electricity. When fully operational in 2020, the project will supply energy to over a million homes, and a further two phases are planned over the coming decade.
Over 10 gigawatts of offshore wind either already has government support or is eligible to apply for it in the near future, following a 10 GW contract award that underscores momentum, representing over 30 billion of likely investment opportunities.
Capital is coming from European utility firms and increasingly from Asian strategic investors looking to learn from the UKs experience. The attractive government support mechanism means banks are keen to lend into the sector, says Szanto.
New investment in the UKs offshore wind sector will also help to counter the growing influence of China. The UK is currently the worlds largest offshore wind market, but by 2021 it will be outstripped by China.
Through its new deal, the government hopes to increase wind power exports fivefold to 2.6 billion per year by 2030, with the UKs manufacturing and engineering skills driving projects in growth markets in Europe and Asia and in developing countries supported by the World Bank support through financing and advisory programs.
Over the next two decades, theres a massive opportunity for the UK to maintain its industry leading position by designing, constructing, operating and financing offshore wind projects, says Szanto. Building on projects such as the Hywind project in Scotland, it could become a major export to countries like the USA and Japan, where U.S. lessons from the U.K. are informing policy and coastal waters are much deeper.
Wind-powered smart grids
As wind power becomes a major contributor to the UKs energy supply, which will be increasingly made up of renewable sources in coming decades, there are key infrastructure challenges to overcome.
A real challenge is that the UKs power generation is becoming far more decentralised, with smaller power stations such as onshore wind farms and solar parks and more prosumers residential houses with rooftop solar coupled with a significant rise in intermittent generation, says Szanto. The grid was never designed to manage energy use like that.
One potential part of the solution is to use offshore wind farms in other sites in European waters.
By developing connections between wind projects from neighbouring countries, it will create super-grids that will help mitigate intermittency issues, says Szanto.
More advanced energy storage batteries will also be key for when less energy is generated on still days. There is a growing need for batteries that can store large amounts of energy and smart technology to discharge that energy. Were going through a revolution where new technology companies are working to enable a much smarter grid.
Future smart grids, based on developing technology such as blockchain, might enable the direct trading of energy between generators and consumers, with algorithms that can manage many localised sources and, critically, ensure a smooth power supply.
Investors seeking a higher-yield market are increasingly turning to battery technology, Szanto says. In a future smart grid, for example, batteries could store electricity bought cheaply at low-usage times then sold at peak usage prices or be used to provide backup energy services to other companies.
Majors investing in the transition
Its not just new energy technology companies driving change; established oil and gas companies are accelerating spending on renewable energy. Shell has committed to $1-2 billion per year on clean energy technologies out of a $25-30 billion budget, while Equinor plans to spend 15-20 percent of its budget on renewables by 2030.
The oil and gas majors have the global footprint to deliver offshore wind projects in every country, says Szanto. This could also create co-investment opportunities for other investors in the sector especially as nascent wind markets such as the U.S., where the U.S. offshore wind timeline is still developing, and Japan evolve.
European energy giants, for example, have bid to build New Yorks first offshore wind project.
As offshore wind becomes a globalised sector, with a trillion-dollar market outlook emerging, the major fuel companies will have increasingly large roles. They have the resources to undertake the years-long, cost-intensive developments of wind projects, driven by a need for new business models as the world looks beyond carbon-based fuels, says Szanto.
Oil and gas heavyweights are also making wind, solar and energy storage acquisitions BP acquired solar developer Lightsource and car-charging network Chargemaster, while Shell spent $400 million on solar and battery companies.
The public perception is that renewable energy is niche, but its now a mainstream form of energy generation., concludes Szanto.
Every nation in the world is aligned in wanting a decarbonised future. In terms of electricity, that means renewable energy and for offshore wind energy, the outlook is extremely positive.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ontario Pumped Storage advances as Ontario's largest energy storage project, delivering clean electricity, long-duration capacity, and grid reliability for peak demand, led by TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, with IESO review underway.
Key Points
A long-duration storage project in Meaford storing clean power for peak demand, supporting Ontario's emission-free grid.
✅ Stores clean electricity to power 1M homes for 11 hours
✅ Partnership: TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation
✅ Pending IESO review and OEB regulation decisions
In a bid to accelerate the province's ambitions for clean economic growth, TC Energy Corporation has announced significant progress in the development of the Ontario Pumped Storage Project. The Government of Ontario in Canada has unveiled a plan to address growing energy needs as a sustainable road map aimed at achieving an emission-free electricity sector, and as part of this plan, the Ministry of Energy is set to undertake a final evaluation of the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project. A decision is expected to be reached by the end of the year.
Ontario Pumped Storage is a collaborative effort between TC Energy and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The project is designed to be Ontario's largest energy storage initiative, capable of storing clean electricity to power one million homes for 11 hours. As the province strives to transition to a cleaner electricity grid by embracing clean power across sectors, long duration storage solutions like Ontario Pumped Storage will play a pivotal role in providing reliable, emission-free power during peak demand periods.
The success of the Project hinges on the approval of TC Energy's board of directors and a fruitful partnership agreement with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. TC Energy is aiming for a final investment decision in 2024, as Ontario confronts an electricity shortfall in the coming years, with the anticipated in-service date being in the early 2030s, pending regulatory and corporate approvals.
“Ontario Pumped Storage will be a critical component of Ontario’s growing clean economy and will deliver significant benefits and savings to consumers,” said Corey Hessen, Executive Vice-President and President, TC Energy, Power and Energy Solutions. “Ontario continues to attract major investments that will have large power needs — many of which are seeking zero-emission energy before they invest. We are pleased the government is advancing efforts to recognize the significant role that long duration storage plays — firming resources, including new gas plants under provincial consideration, will become increasingly valuable in supporting a future emission-free electricity system.”
The Municipality of Meaford also expressed its support for the project, recognizing the positive impact it could have on the local economy and the overall electricity system of Ontario. Additionally, various stakeholders, including LiUNA OPDC, LiUNA Local 183, and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, lauded the potential for job creation, training opportunities, and resilient energy infrastructure as Ontario seeks new wind and solar power to ease a coming electricity supply crunch.
The timeline for Ontario Pumped Storage's progress includes a final analysis by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to confirm its role in Ontario's electricity system and in balancing demand and emissions during the transition, to be completed by 30 September 2023. Concurrently, the Ministry of Energy will engage in consultations on the potential regulation of the Project via the Ontario Energy Board, while debates over clean, affordable electricity intensify ahead of the Ontario election, with a final determination scheduled for 30 November 2023.
Vancouver Formula E 2022 delivers an all-electric, net-zero motorsport event in False Creek, featuring sustainability initiatives, clean mobility showcases, concerts, and tourism boosts, with major economic impact, jobs, and a climate action conference.
Key Points
A net-zero, all-electric race in False Creek, uniting EV motorsport with sustainability, concerts, and local jobs.
✅ Net-zero, all-electric FIA championship round in Canada
✅ False Creek street circuit with concerts and green mobility expo
✅ Projected $80M impact and thousands of local jobs
The City of Vancouver is hosting an ABB FIA Formula E World Championship race next year, organizers have announced, aligning with the city's EV-ready policy to accelerate adoption.
The all-electric race is being held in the city's False Creek neighbourhood over the 2022 July long weekend as green energy investments accelerate nationwide, according to promoter OSS Group Inc.
Earlier this year, Vancouver city council voted unanimously in support of a multi-day Formula E event that would include a conference on climate change and sustainability amid predicted EV-demand bottlenecks in B.C.
"Formula E is a win on so many levels, from being a net-zero event that supports sustainable transportation to being a huge boost for our hard-hit tourism sector, our residents, who can access rebates for home and workplace charging, and our local economy," Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung said in a news release Thursday.
The promoter said the Formula E race will bring $80 million in economic value and thousands of jobs to the city, with infrastructure like new EV chargers at YVR also underway, but did not provide any details on how it came to those estimates.
More details on the events surrounding the race, including planned concerts and other EV showcases like Everything Electric, are expected to be announced in the fall.
The last time a Formula E World Championship event came to Canada was the Montreal ePrix in 2017. Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante later cancelled planned Formula E events for 2018 and 2019, citing cost overruns and sponsorship troubles.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
